GNU bug report logs - #60659
30.0.50; tree-sitter: identical nodes are not `equal'

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 60659 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 60659 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mickey Petersen <mickey <at> masteringemacs.org>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 30.0.50; tree-sitter: identical nodes are not `equal'
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2023 14:55:16 +0000

In order to check for node equality, one must use `treesit-node-eq'.

But I see little reason why two identical nodes in in the same tree aren't `equal'?



In GNU Emacs 30.0.50 (build 6, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version
 3.24.20, cairo version 1.16.0) of 2023-01-02 built on mickey-work
Repository revision: c209802f7b3721a1b95113290934a23fee88f678
Repository branch: master
Windowing system distributor 'The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.12013000
System Description: Ubuntu 20.04.3 LTS

Configured using:
 'configure --with-native-compilation --with-json --with-mailutils
 --without-compress-install --with-imagemagick CC=gcc-10'

Message #8 received at 60659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Mickey Petersen <mickey <at> masteringemacs.org>
Cc: 60659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#60659: 30.0.50; tree-sitter: identical nodes are not `equal'
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2023 19:59:07 -0800

Mickey Petersen <mickey <at> masteringemacs.org> writes:

> In order to check for node equality, one must use `treesit-node-eq'.
>
> But I see little reason why two identical nodes in in the same tree aren't `equal'?

Indeed. I’ll see if I can extend equal to handle tree-sitter nodes.

Yuan

Message #11 received at 60659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mickey Petersen <mickey <at> masteringemacs.org>
To: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 60659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#60659: 30.0.50; tree-sitter: identical nodes are not `equal'
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2023 08:55:19 +0000

Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Mickey Petersen <mickey <at> masteringemacs.org> writes:
>
>> In order to check for node equality, one must use `treesit-node-eq'.
>>
>> But I see little reason why two identical nodes in in the same tree aren't `equal'?
>
> Indeed. I’ll see if I can extend equal to handle tree-sitter nodes.
>

Nice one. This will allow for membership checks with `member' and
such-like and it'll greatly cut down on custom code, particularly one
you start writing tests!

> Yuan

Message #14 received at 60659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 60659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#60659: 30.0.50; tree-sitter: identical nodes are not `equal'
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:56:19 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Mickey Petersen <mickey <at> masteringemacs.org> writes:

> Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Mickey Petersen <mickey <at> masteringemacs.org> writes:
>>
>>> In order to check for node equality, one must use `treesit-node-eq'.
>>>
>>> But I see little reason why two identical nodes in in the same tree aren't `equal'?
>>
>> Indeed. I’ll see if I can extend equal to handle tree-sitter nodes.
>>
>
> Nice one. This will allow for membership checks with `member' and
> such-like and it'll greatly cut down on custom code, particularly one
> you start writing tests!
>
>> Yuan

Eli, does this look right to you? In particular, I’m not sure if it’s ok to call a lisp function (Ftreesit_node_eq) inside internal_equal, even though it never signals. 

Yuan

[equal.diff (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Message #17 received at 60659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 60659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#60659: 30.0.50; tree-sitter: identical nodes are not `equal'
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 15:11:20 +0200

> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:56:19 -0800
> Cc: 60659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Eli, does this look right to you? In particular, I’m not sure if it’s ok to call a lisp function (Ftreesit_node_eq) inside internal_equal, even though it never signals. 

It is better to make a C function from most of the body of
Ftreesit_node_eq, but without the CHECK_NODE parts, and make both
Fequal and Ftreesit_node_eq call that.  Because CHECK_NODE can signal,
right?  Also, you should make sure up front that _both_ o1 and o2 are
treesit nodes, otherwise they cannot be 'equal'.

Lars, Stefan: any comments/suggestions?

Message #20 received at 60659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 60659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: Re: bug#60659: 30.0.50; tree-sitter: identical nodes are not `equal'
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 18:57:02 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
>> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:56:19 -0800
>> Cc: 60659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> 
>> Eli, does this look right to you? In particular, I’m not sure if
>> it’s ok to call a lisp function (Ftreesit_node_eq) inside
>> internal_equal, even though it never signals.
>
> It is better to make a C function from most of the body of
> Ftreesit_node_eq, but without the CHECK_NODE parts, and make both
> Fequal and Ftreesit_node_eq call that.  Because CHECK_NODE can signal,
> right?  Also, you should make sure up front that _both_ o1 and o2 are
> treesit nodes, otherwise they cannot be 'equal'.

I should’ve included some context. There is code that checks whether o1
and o2 have the same (pseudo vector) type and size[1], and returns early
if not, so I only need to check the type of o1. And since I checked the
type of o1, CHECK_NODE will always succeed.

But still, using a C functions is more correct. How about this?

[equal.diff (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

Yuan

[1]

	ptrdiff_t size = ASIZE (o1);
	/* Pseudovectors have the type encoded in the size field, so this test
	   actually checks that the objects have the same type as well as the
	   same size.  */
	if (ASIZE (o2) != size)
	  return false;

Message #23 received at 60659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 60659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: Re: bug#60659: 30.0.50; tree-sitter: identical nodes are not `equal'
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 14:26:18 +0200

> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 18:57:02 -0800
> Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org,
>  monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca,
>  60659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> But still, using a C functions is more correct. How about this?

Yes, this is what I had in mind.  Thanks.

Message #28 received at 60659-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, 60659-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: Re: bug#60659: 30.0.50; tree-sitter: identical nodes are not `equal'
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 17:08:14 -0800

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
>> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 18:57:02 -0800
>> Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org,
>>  monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca,
>>  60659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> 
>> But still, using a C functions is more correct. How about this?
>
> Yes, this is what I had in mind.  Thanks.

Cool. I applied it.

Yuan

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.